GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
LOK SABHA
STARRED QUESTION NO. †*93
TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 22nd JULY, 2022
Action against Filing False Cases
†*93. SHRI GOPAL CHINNAYA SHETTY:
Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:
(a) whether the Government proposes to take strict action against persons who file
false cases such as recovery of entire legal expenses, doubling of the amount/
imprisonment in case of repetition of offence, etc. so as to bring transparency in the
judicial system of the country;
(b) if so, the details thereof;
(c) whether the Government proposes to bring in provision of jail or imprisonment in
case of failure to pay the penalty by such persons; and
(d) whether the Government has taken any steps to ensure that the persons filing cases
should furnish full details of their expenses and if so, the details thereof?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE
(SHRI KIREN RIJIJU)
(a) to (d) : A statement is laid on the table of the House.
Page 1 of 3
Statement referred to in reply of Lok Sabha Starred Question No. †*93 raised by Shri
Gopal Chinnaya Shetty, Hon’ble MP regarding “Action against Filing False Cases”:
(a) to (d): No, Sir. Legal and Constitutional remedies are guaranteed under the provisions of
the Constitution. Approaching courts for redressal is a right of all citizens and especially the
marginalised, who are fighting to get justice.
As per the contentions of the parties in a case, it is for the Court to decide whether the
case/petition/suit is maintainable or not and what relief is admissible or otherwise depending
on the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, there are certain laws to deal with the
frivolous litigations. Under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, section 35A provides for
payment of costs by way of compensation in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences.
Also, under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the court is empowered to
direct payment of compensation to the accused, if the court considers that there is no
reasonable ground for making the accusation. Further, as per section 209 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intentto injure or annoy any person,
makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, is liable to be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall
alsobe liable to fine. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court and High Courts have also issued certain
directions from time to time through their orders/judgements to keep a check on frivolous
litigation/false claims. The courts are also concerned that its process are not abused by any
persons, organisations and institutions by filing frivolous petitions in the name of PILs.
Further, Public-interest litigation is a rule of declared law by the courts of record. However,
the person (or entity) filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the
petition serves the public interest and is not a frivolous lawsuit brought for monetary gain.
The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and
Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402, had held that in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it
has become imperative to issue the following directions:-
(a) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and
curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(b) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the
public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to
properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the
PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts
who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months.
The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of
the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this
court immediately thereafter.
(c) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before
entertaining a PIL.
Page 2 of 3
(d) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of
the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(e) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before
entertaining the petition.
(f) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity
and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(g) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at
redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure
that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing
the public interest litigation.
(h) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for
extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary
costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India & Ors.(2014) 8
SCC 470, has held that “The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous
litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive
obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the
process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible
and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness,
whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part.”
Recently, the Supreme Court, in „Charu Kishor Mehta vs. Prakash Patel & Ors., SLP(c)
No. 11030 /2022vide order dated 22.06.2022 confirmed the Order dated 13.06.2022 of the
Bombay High Court, and held that filing frivolous cases in a court of law is an abuse of
process of law. The Courtalso upheld the order of Bombay High Courtimposing the cost of
Rs. 5 lakhs on the petitioner and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case H. S. Bedi vs. NHAI (MANU/DE/0154/2016)
has issued a set of guidelines to the lower courts for initiating prosecution under Section 209
of the Indian Penal Code in appropriate cases. The High Court said that the reluctance of
courts to take action encourages litigants to make false averments. As stated above, section
209 of the IPC provides for imprisonment upto two years' and fine for the offence of
fraudulently or dishonestly making a false claim in the court with the intent to injure or annoy
any person.
Since Hon‟ble Supreme Court and High Courts have been issuing guidelines from time to
time to put a check on the false and frivolous litigation, no further actions at the level of the
Central Government is contemplatedat this stage.
Page 3 of 3
